Andrew Bynum 4year/58million done deal!

[TonyMontana]

and its not even about bynum simply getting hurt again, its about the specific knee acting up again. i mean, if he goes out and breaks his wrist on some bad fall is the contract all of a sudden a bad move? u can't predict injuries.

Ya I agree Dc, but I think the majority of us are and were concerned about his previous injury.
But hey Im cool with 14 and I think it was a good move on both sides, lets hope Bynum stays healthy and produces like most us have expected him to.
Oh on the brigther note, I heard David Lee is representing Ariza now too.
Cant wait to see how this one turns out.

[Sedale Threatt]

DC, it's not like Andrew doesn't have a history of injuries with two major knee operations before he hit 21. You can't just sweep that under the rug. I also remember reading somewhere that some physician who dealt with him regarding the recent incident has concerns about his long-term health in relation to his body's gait. You have to take all that into account.

But those are the risks you take, in professional sports and life in general. And besides, I'm not even sure what the risk is considering we were going to be substantially over the salary cap regardless until the summer of 2011, upon which Kobe's going to be pushing 33 and Andrew will be on the hook for only one more season. So what exactly did we lose here?

Nothing less than a career-ender would have kept us from matching a restricted offer next summer. And it's not like his salary is going to keep us from being some big-time player in the free-agent market. It might prevent us from retaining guys like Odom and Farmar. But in my opinion, we're not winning anything without a healthy Andrew Bynum, so the whole issue is moot unless he can stay on the court.

That's what this whole thing boils down to:

Healthy Andrew Bynum, this is a great deal.

Injured Andrew Bynum, we're screwed anyway, so ... ?

[Sedale Threatt]

and its not even about bynum simply getting hurt again, its about the specific knee acting up again. i mean, if he goes out and breaks his wrist on some bad fall is the contract all of a sudden a bad move? u can't predict injuries.

Ya I agree Dc, but I think the majority of us are and were concerned about his previous injury.
But hey Im cool with 14 and I think it was a good move on both sides, lets hope Bynum stays healthy and produces like most us have expected him to.
Oh on the brigther note, I heard David Lee is representing Ariza now too.
Cant wait to see how this one turns out.

I'm guessing we're only going to be able to keep two of the three -- Odom, Ariza and Farmar. All three would be great, but I'm just not seeing us being able to pull it off. We might even be able to keep only one unless Odom is willing to take a cut, which remains to be seen.

My order of preference would be:

1a. Odom -- The key to our front-court depth.
1b. Farmar -- PG of the future.
3. Ariza -- Great energy and improving role player, but probably more of a luxury than anything.

[TonyMontana]

I agree S.T.
I think Lamar will, if we do well this year, I honestly think he will.

[daddyfivestar]

DC, it's not like Andrew doesn't have a history of injuries with two major knee operations before he hit 21. You can't just sweep that under the rug. I also remember reading somewhere that some physician who dealt with him regarding the recent incident has concerns about his long-term health in relation to his body's gait. You have to take all that into account.

But those are the risks you take, in professional sports and life in general. And besides, I'm not even sure what the risk is considering we were going to be substantially over the salary cap regardless until the summer of 2011, upon which Kobe's going to be pushing 33 and Andrew will be on the hook for only one more season. So what exactly did we lose here?

Nothing less than a career-ender would have kept us from matching a restricted offer next summer. And it's not like his salary is going to keep us from being some big-time player in the free-agent market. It might prevent us from retaining guys like Odom and Farmar. But in my opinion, we're not winning anything without a healthy Andrew Bynum, so the whole issue is moot unless he can stay on the court.

That's what this whole thing boils down to:

Healthy Andrew Bynum, this is a great deal.

Injured Andrew Bynum, we're screwed anyway, so ... ?

Exactly ST! That is the precise point.
Dude is now locked up and this did not become a distraction.

[Verbal]

Sometimes players catch a royal flush on the river.

True, but to catch that royal flush, would you go all in at the turn? Once you see get a royal flush, then go all in. What do the marginal chips matter in comparison to the entire pile of chips?

Actually, the Lakers didn't go all in, they just left a small pile of chips, as if that mattered. 10 million over 4 years is exactly that. 2.5 mil a year? That's nothing compared to what the Lakers invested in Bynum and the Lakers. 2.5m a year is simply paying the small blind in a no-limit game.

Sure, one could add luxury tax to present a larger savings. 20 million including luxury tax over 4 years sounds a little more substantial, but if we're including the luxury tax, how does paying nearly 120 million to a guy who's coming off knee surgery sound?

Here's the dilemma: 115 million, to a guy coming off knee surgery who hasn't proven he's reliable, or 136 million, to a guy who's shown his knee troubles are behind him?

It's marginal scratch, well-worth paying to see if Bynum will be healthy enough to play in the playoffs every year. Let me ask you, what's 2.5 mil a year (or 5m if you prefer) if Bynum is in street clothes and we face Boston in the Finals again? Chump change, that's what it would be.

Seriously, what kind of businessman would take the 115 million? That would be a terrible financial decision, particularly because the Lakers had the advantage of waiting for the bond's maturity before making a decision.

Two problems I have with this is time and money. Time was on the Lakers side. Why pay Bynum now? Money? They tried to save a little money in the wrong way. Want to save money? Think about other players on our roster. Try shaving off some money when we're talking about Radmanovic, Luke Walton, Vujacic, hell Odom. Not our potential future franchise player.

What's the chance that Bynum is fully recovered and will have no major problems for the life of that contract? As of today, I personally feel that it might not be high enough to warrant giving him a contract right now. Especially when I heard he had some swelling still in that knee. The concern is just enough so that I would wait to see if Bynum is an injury-prone player or not.

Plus one for Bynum's "douche bag" agent. Lakers had all the chips, but Buss, the poker player, just got taken. The agent bluffed, bullied Buss, he was pushing too hard to close a deal before the season began (which should have raised a red flag). But Buss inexplicably lost his nerve.

Buss's right move would have been to assess the risk, evaluate his advantageous position, sit Bynum down, and tell him this:

"Bynum, you are our franchise's future. We'll pay you whatever you deserve. We've always taken care of our players. We just need to know that we'll be paying for a player who'll be on the floor when we need him."

And let him prove it, like everybody else.

I'm disappointed if you believe that I think the Lakers front office made the best move.

As expected, they made the consistent move.


Yes, they overpaid... but it's a decent deal.

If you've followed my posts in the Bynum thread you'd know about this:

If there's one thing I know about Buss... he's cheap.

And Bynum & company started the bidding with the max bid.

Decent strategy.

Childish.

But decent.

9 million per year sounds like his true value...

11.5 million would be closer to what it would take them both to get into bed...

13.5 million would be generous....

14 million will shut both those guys up.


Yup yup.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=844403&start=120


But I'm okay with what happened; it's not my money.

They just cut through the BS and hopped straight into bed together.

Besides, Buss/Buss/Kupchak have been banking on Bynum's success since he was drafted...

You know, tutoring lessons... Kareem... bringing Kwame in... etc.


Anyways, he's no Kobe.

As you know, Kobe was dominating against his peers and hanging tough against his elders since a teen.



Ahem. Back on topic...

A. Quick Notes:

1. Odom
-I was the first to mention why Odom was an expendable luxury to our team a few years back and I've gone into more detail as this Lakers team has rolled along.
-But it seems like he's down to be a Laker for life and it'll be on the owners to take care of him as the "glue guy."

2. Ariza
-Ariza was a bit of a surprise. I liked this trade. He's a keeper if he can hit that 3 and defend.

3. Sasha
-If you remember, I called the fact Sasha was gonna get offered the MLE by Kupchak... even though I felt he was only worth 3 million (at most).

4. Radman
-We both agree on the Radman issue (even though he did turn it around a bit this season). Btw, props for mentioning this first, ["We already have Cook, why do we need Radman!?"] a few years back.

5. Walton
-Walton is an overpaid 8th man... smooth move Kupchak.

6. Bynum
-Bynum's all right.
-He's a solid player who can put up 15pts-8rbs-2ast-2blks in 30 mins or so.
-He's getting paid money that should almost justify him being an All-Star... so as long as he puts in work and puts up production, we'll all be content with him.

B. Recap:
If Buss wants to put his money where his mouth is and save money here and there... he can do just that and buy a few guys out (as an emergency sorta thing, if they can't get any trades done) to avoid paying the luxury-tax.

[milesfides]

DC, it's not like Andrew doesn't have a history of injuries with two major knee operations before he hit 21. You can't just sweep that under the rug. I also remember reading somewhere that some physician who dealt with him regarding the recent incident has concerns about his long-term health in relation to his body's gait. You have to take all that into account.

But those are the risks you take, in professional sports and life in general.

Really? I don't kow, I wouldn't, not when the Lakers are poised to evaluate Bynum for another year. If Bynum were a free agent at the end of last season, yes, then it would be a tough decision, and probably a risk worth taking.

Why bother evaluating Bynum for another year? Because he may get hurt again, and then we have to consider he's injury-prone. There's plenty of players who undergo surgery...then need another one, then another one, then can't seem to get back on the court. Mihm had some freak ankle injury that just got worse, and he's been out for 2 years.

Even an elite player like Arenas can't seem to get right. How about even one of the best players in the league like McGrady, who not only misses a ton of games, but his injuries seem to have hampered his abilities.

Our own Luke Walton. At this point, can anybody say he's not injury prone and was a bad signing?

Or look at Nene Hilario. That guy was on the verge of being an emerging talented center, but after he signed a big contract, he ended up being a guy who hasn't been able to further his game due to injury.

How about Greg Oden? Is that guy made out of glass? He's played like five minutes in two years.

I'm not saying Bynum is injury prone. But there is some history behind his injuries, and why not use the one year grace period that we have? See if his injuries are really behind him.

Nothing less than a career-ender would have kept us from matching a restricted offer next summer.

Maybe, but it might reduce some of the offers, no?

And it's not like his salary is going to keep us from being some big-time player in the free-agent market. It might prevent us from retaining guys like Odom and Farmar. But in my opinion, we're not winning anything without a healthy Andrew Bynum, so the whole issue is moot unless he can stay on the court.

Well, if we're acting like Bynum's hefty contract doesn't really matter with respect to the salary cap, then why would the Lakers try to get a discount on Bynum by signing him early? The Lakers have shown that they'd rather save on 2.5 million (5 mil w/ tax) a year, than avoid tying up 57 million or 120 million with tax in an injury-prone player. To me, that's (Please Use More Appropriate Word), considering that the marginal savings are really chump change considering the risk.

That's what this whole thing boils down to:

Healthy Andrew Bynum, this is a great deal.

Injured Andrew Bynum, we're screwed anyway, so ... ?

I agree with the former. Totally disagree with the latter. There are various levels of getting "screwed." Is Bynum going to miss a few games, which is reasonable in the NBA? Or will he be unable to last for a season, and be out for the playoffs when we really need him? Or will he be on and off and prevent our team from establishing any sort of consistency, the consistency required to win a championship? Can't injuries be just as distracting, if not more than contract negotiations? Btw, once the deadline passed, it wouldn't be an issue. Bynum and his agent simply would have to deal - the reason why his agent was pushing so hard was the deadline.

People freak out about Luke's contract and his injuries - the guy is making like 4m a year. Imagine Bynum sitting in street clothes in the playoffs, raking in 14m a year.

And anyways, you never know what could happen in basketball. Shaun Livingston, George Garbajosa, sometimes freaky things happen, and when I see Andrew and his sometimes gangly base moving a little too quickly and awkwardly, I hold my breath, I really do.

It's worth the 2.5m a year (5 if we're counting luxury tax) to make sure Bynum's knee problems are behind him. That's a very small price to pay considering the risk, 14m (or 28m including luxury tax) for an injury prone, unreliable player.

I'm not saying he is, but he's certainly has to prove he's fully healthy, doesn't he?

And regarding options, it's not like we have to sign Andrew no matter what. If we didn't sign him, and he gets hurt again this year, and he and his agent are still adamantly seeking close to the max, then I would absolutely deal him. There's too much risk for our championship contending team to give him the max.

Hell, I'd rather have Odom than a great promising center who's had several major knee operations in a short span. And if not Odom, then I'm sure we can get safer, high-quality assets for teams who are willing to take on that risk (bottom of the barrel teams).

Hell, let's say Andrew's knee swells again, they find something wrong with it, or worse, nothing wrong with it, he has to sit out a lot of games, he can't get right this year...

I would definitely shop him for a top pick in this year's draft.

There's always options, as long as you have time, which is an advantage the Lakers had - until they gave it up.


P.S.
Lastly, I totally disagree with the idea that Bynum might cause a problem, becoming a selfish player trying to play for a big contract.

First of all, our offense has built in limitations to what he can do offensively. We have many weapons, and the offense doesn't go through Bynum. Moreover, we're playing more uptempo, so that's another offensive limitation.

Second, it's great if Bynum becomes a little more selfish and tries to dominate. That's what I'd like. If he tries to murder people in the post, all the power to him.

When it's Finals time, our lovely passing game will sputter, as it did against the Celtics. Sometimes, a playoff series will come down to bruising, MMA, trench battles, and you need to bring the big guns and the heavy hitters and win ugly.

I love the idea of Bynum aggressively attacking in the post, whether for love of money or glory. We had Shaq, remember, and we won 3 championships.

Contract years, players tend to play better, imo. That's generally a good thing, not a bad thing, especially in Bynum's role on our team.

[milesfides]

Lastly, I get a little peeved when I hear about coddling Bynum. What's so bad about proving your worth in a contract year?

How about Lamar Odom? This is a guy who gave more to the Lakers than Bynum ever did. And the Lakers left Odom out to dry in a variety of ways. They tell him to earn his next contract, but they tell this career starter to come off the bench. That's a lose-lose situation.

That invariably diminishes his role and hurts his market value.

People talk about his getting a lot of minutes anyways and proving to everybody he's more interested in a championship than a contract. Yay...but he's averaged 8 points in 2 games so far, and both have been blowouts. How's he going to get more minutes in a close game?

Nobody's going to pay Odom more money because he's shown he's willing to come off the bench. He's a starter who should get paid starter money, but how's coming off the bench going to help his cause? It won't.

Anyways, if I'm Odom, I'm feeling a little disrespected right now. I could accept a team stance on contract years, but I couldn't accept a double-standard. They tell Odom to earn it but they nearly max out Bynum?

Somebody was out there fighting and helping our team get to the Finals, and his name wasn't Bynum.

Hey I felt the Lakers would max out Bynum and cut Odom anyways, but I really don't like how they've handled it.

They should have respected Lamar Odom a little more, and told Bynum to earn it as well. This isn't sitting well with me at all.

[Sedale Threatt]

First of all, let me state that I totally and completely understand where you and some other critics of this deal, like V and Tony, are coming from. By no means is this a slam dunk, like handing over the keys to the franchise to Shaq back in 96 or giving young Kobe a maximum extension.

We just gave a 21-year-old kid, coming off his second major knee injury, the type of money reserved (or at least, should be reserved) for players who dominate playoff series. There is a ton of risk involved. Nobody can debate that. I do the same thing you do whenever Andrew hits the floor or gets his limbs tied up -- I hold my breath. Some guys just aren't built to survive the pounding of professional basketball, and Andrew's history indicates he could be one of them.

I just feel like if you weigh absolutely everything -- not just his injury history, but his potential, what he means to the team's future (both immediately and long-term), the type of attention he likely would have received on the (semi) free market -- we made a sound decision for the position we were in.

Provided Andrew makes it through the year unscathed -- no sure thing, of course -- we were almost certainly looking at a maximum contract extension of five years and about $85 million. (I've seen varying reports on the dollar amount, but this seems to be the most commonly printed figure). There's just no way a young prospect, with his potential, at such a crucial, hard-to-fill position, is going to get anything less, regardless of the fact he hasn't earned it yet. That's just reality in today's NBA.

Waiting an extra year to see how Andrew holds up would have given us extra information with which to evaluate his durability, and extra information is always good. But in the end, what would it have really meant? Perhaps another injury knocks down his asking price, or convinces us to go in a completely different direction. In that instance, waiting would have obviously been the best choice.

But it's not like a healthy season all of a sudden makes him an iron man. He can just as easily get hurt next season, or the one after that, or the one after that. From that standpoint, the extra year means absolutely nothing.

And even if we did have the option to trade him, or let him walk and save ourselves the bucks, in my opinion that hurts almost as bad as having him on the books as damaged goods. We specifically need what he gives us as a top-flight center, and we're not going to be able to pick that up anywhere else. Not in the draft, and definitely not in a trade or free agency.

So really, what we did was take a calculated risk that Andrew's going to stay healthy for one season in exchange for the insurance of a shorter, less expensive deal.

I know the $2.5 or 3 million a year discount doesn't seem like much, but look at it this way -- that could be the difference between keeping or losing a key player like Farmar or Ariza. (Reading the Times today it sounds like Odom is as good as gone, which you have been calling for months) If so, it will have been a very shrewd move. And my reasoning for saying that Bynum's contract wouldn't hurt in this regard -- if he's not around and fully healthy to push us over the top, how much do those guys really matter?

This is just my personal opinion, and I understand that you disagree, but I don't think we're winning anything without an elite center. More specifically, we aren't winning anything without a healthy Andrew Bynum.

Depending on one's definition, Andrew might already fit that description. If not, I don't think anybody with a shred of basketball knowledge would debate that a healthy, prime, experienced Andrew Bynum stands a great chance of reaching that plateau. He is the key.

Factor everything in, and I don't think the analogy of some maniac pushing all in on the turn hoping to catch a 4-1 draw applies. This was more like going all in on the flop, with two over cards as well as flush and straight draws. That gives you about a 70% chance of winning -- far from a sure thing, but if you're getting the right odds, you're obiligated to call.

I think we were, and now time will tell.

[Sedale Threatt]

Regarding Odom vs. Bynum, it's simple: Aside from the fact that Andrew is the pet project of one of the owner's sons -- a very advantageous position to be in, no? -- he has a decent chance to be a franchise player at a position that has proven to have strong correlation to championships.

Odom, on the other hand, has already shown us what he is, which might not even be the third-best player on a championship team. I generally like his game, and I totally appreciate his willingness to accept coming off the bench, but the bottom line for me -- when the chips are down, I don't trust him.

You're coming at this from the standpoint of loyalty, which is very admirable. Bet let's be honest -- loyalty in professional sports died decades ago, if it ever existed in the first place.

Also, while Lamar has been absolutely awesome about accepting his role change -- he can't get enough credit for this -- he also apparently spent the summer before a contract year sitting on the beach drinking beer. Maybe it wouldn't have made any difference in terms of his future with the Lakers. But to me, that says a lot about his career. As good a player as he's been, how much has he really improved?

Bynum, as unproven as he is, and as much as his attitude might change now that he got paid, has at least shown the desire to get the most out of his ability.

[milesfides]

-if Bynum could prove to stay healthy for a season, it would be huge, not because it shows that he's an iron man, but because it shows that he successfully overcame knee surgery. That's absolutely huge, since knee injuries can linger for years - as some players have proven.

-trading Bynum does hurt, but so does having him in and out of the lineup, unreliable and unavailable in the playoffs. Trading Bynum for a top pick in next year's draft, or a solid group of veterans could be the difference in winning a championship (as we've seen with Boston). You can't replace Bynum's potential, but then again, Bynum himself can't reach his own potential if he's injury-prone. So we'd be chasing dreams here.

-I doubt 2.5 million would be the difference between signing Ariza or not. If Ariza gets other offers for above the MLE, maybe we'd think twice, but this is a guy the Lakers hope will become a starter or finisher - they wouldn't lose him for 2.5 million.

-also, I highly disagree with the idea that we can't win a championship without Bynum. We got to the Finals without him, playing great basketball. Moreover, we did lack toughness inside, but toughness isn't a 15-10 center, toughness entails mental toughness, physicality, and reliability. In addition, many would say our biggest problem wasn't center, where Lamar Odom essentially neutralized Perkins, but small forward, where Paul Pierce raped Radmanovic and walked away with the MVP trophy. Or, elite team defense, something that our team didn't play last year. Lastly, Bynum didn't play well at all against Perkins and the Celtics last year. He wouldn't have guaranteed anything, and while I expect Bynum to develop and improve, he has yet to reach his level of play last year.

-bottom line, I don't think Bynum is "key." He hasn't shown that he's "key" to anything yet. What we do know is that we need a better team defense, which he can be an important part of, but it's also a change in coaching philosophy, a newfound willingness to use zones. We've played excellent defense for great stretches in the first two games, and Bynum wasn't the main reason for that - it was our team, covering, switching, reading, helping. Moreover, Radmanovic's new commitment to defense is a major change, as is Ariza's availability.

-Bynum could be our team's franchise player, but the reality is that this team was very close to the championship last year, and Bynum's absence wasn't the only, nor the main, reason why we lost.

And speaking of Bynum's absence...and relevant to the point again, shouldn't we see 1. if Bynum can endure a long season and be available in the playoffs 2. how Bynum actually plays in the playoffs before throwing so much money at him?

[microfib4thewin]

You say you can't place your chips on Odom, but why would you have that confidence in Bynum? Even if he did play well last year his hot streak didn't start until he was playing sub .500 teams with the exception of the Hornets. Against any formidable defense Bynum still couldn't score like he's the second option even at his peak, so how is he any more reliable than Odom? I give you interior defense, but team defense has always been more than things accomplished at an individual level, so if our team D stays that way for the rest of the season, losing Bynum wouldn't cause a huge downfall like some have predicted.

[milesfides]

ST, this isn't about loyalty. This isn't about who's a better player. This isn't about who's more important to the team.

I'm talking about purely practical terms here. If Bynum can't get right, if there's a chronic issue with his health, then nothing else matters.

If Bynum is hurt and is unavailable for the playoffs, guess how valuable he is? He's worth nothing - at least for that year. And what about the next?

[And again, I'm not saying Bynum will be injury-prone, simply that there is the possibility - and we had the LUXURY of testing that possibility]

On the other hand, Odom has fought through injury, he's played in every playoffs for the Lakers with a 15-10+ average. And despite what some people say, he's NOT the reason why we lost to Boston.

You've misread that as an exhortation for loyalty. I meant is as evidence of his relative reliability. Relative to Andrew Bynum, that is, who hasn't helped us win anything.

Bynum could potentially be the greatest center in the history of the NBA, but what's the use if he's going to be sitting in street clothes as he was against Boston? Sure, it's just one season, but what if knee or any other injuries plague him and derail his career as it has done for countless other NBA players - even stars? It's a very real risk anytime a player goes under the knife, no?

Again, it's not about loyalty, it's about common sense. The Lakers don't know what they're getting from Odom? Ok, have a year to audition. The Lakers don't know whether Bynum can stay healthy? Ok, have a year to audition.

The Lakers could and should have auditioned both Odom and Bynum this year; one for ability, the other for health. They had that kind of luxury, and it made all the sense in the world to exercise that right.

But the Lakers traded in that advantage to save an amount of money that is quite trivial when considering the magnitude of the risks involved. It was quite stupid, imho.

[AceFresh]

we need to extend MIHM!!

[Sedale Threatt]

Miles, my bad about misinterpreting the Odom post.

As for the notion that extending Andrew at this point was "quite stupid," I think that's totally unfair.

Is it a gamble? Of course; Kupchak admits as much. Is there a chance it might not work out? Absolutely; again, Kupchak admits as much. Time will tell if it's a bad decision.

But a stupid one? That makes it sound like this was done rashly, without any thought to consqeuence or the bigger picture. That clearly isn't the case.

Quite stupid is giving Rashard Lewis however many millions more in free agency than any other team could afford when you didn't have to.

Quite stupid is not taking advantage of a window to sign a promising, albeit unproven and potentially injury prone, young prosect to a smaller, shorter deal that will possibly (probably?) be closed next year.

Risky, yes. Nobody can dispute that. But definitely not reckless - calculated. There's a big difference.

[milesfides]

I'll stick with my poker analogy. A good, calculated risk would be knowing the odds are in your favor and going all in. When you know you have the best possible hand. Another good move would be folding when you know the odds aren't in your favor.

The Lakers have a good pair of cards in Andrew Bynum. We know he has potential. But the game isn't over. There's the flop, turn, and river. Well, Bynum has yet to prove that he's fully recovered, can be relied upon to put together a solid season, and be effective in the playoffs. We've seen the flop, we've got some bad cards (or red flags) on the table, and suddenly there's a chance that the pocket aces we have in Bynum aren't the best possible hand anymore.

I'm not saying fold them. But the blind or bets are low enough so we can see the next round of cards - to see how the situation progresses. I'll maintain that 2.5 mil a year (or 5 including the luxury tax) is very worth paying to see what exactly we have on our hands.

Bottom line: What's the point of signing Bynum to a 3-year deal? If he has further problems with his knee(s), that's going to be a waste anyways. If he's not injury-prone, then he's worth the max.

Here are the bad cards that should give us pause: Considering the prolonged, somewhat ambiguous recovery of Bynum (took much longer than estimated), and considering that Bynum admitted recently that he still has some swelling in the knee, I'd say banking on Bynum's health right now is one heck of a risk. I would not go all in right now, no. And we don't need to.

Let's see what's a smart risk.

Calculating that it's better to save 2.5m a year (5 w/ tax) and tying up Bynum at 14m a year for at least 3 years, a guy who's had some significant, consecutive if not recurring, knee problems in the past 5 years, who has yet to put together a strong season or help us in the playoffs...

Or waiting one year, making sure that he's 100% healthy, has a full, solid season under his belt with solid contributions (hell, availability) in the playoffs, and paying 2.5m more a year for that peace of mind?

What makes this is a stupid move, imho, is that we had the LUXURY of seeing whether Bynum was fully recovered, and trying to save 2.5m a year is insanely stupid considering that it's relatively nothing considering the risks, 2.5m is nothing considering the amount the total investment in Bynum, 2.5 is nothing considering that our salary cap will be 90m+ next year - even without Odom.

And if anybody thinks we cant win a championship without Bynum, I'd say thing: add one word to that: healthy Bynum. Bynum's got to be healthy if you think his contributions are essential to this team, and if Bynum is to be considered essential, 2.5 mil a year is a small price to pay for a strong indicator of health and reliability.

It's not like the Lakers made a bold risk and tied Bynum up for the MLE. The difference between 14.5m and 17m is absolutely marginal, my goodness, considering the cost/benefit of waiting - Everything hinges on this year: did he fully recover from knee surgery or not?

The Bynum deal was a calculated risk all right, a very poorly calculated risk. The risks are enormous considering the marginal benefits. 14.5m a year (Bynum's durability unknown) instead of 17m (strong indication of health).

Maybe I'm crazy, but the Lakers made a dumb move. Bynum's agent won. He put the pressure on at the right times, and the Lakers blinked. If the Oct. 31 deadline had passed, there'd be nothing more to discuss until after the season.

Well, whatever, the deal is done. I don't like how it was done, I don't like when it was done, I don't like what message it sends to the rest of our upcoming free agents, like Ariza and Farmar, and I don't like that it's basically a slap to the face for Lamar.

But it's done, and I'm also done bitching. I'm happy for Bynum, and I hope he's healthy and productive and everything works out.

[Erik Eleven]

Sometimes you just have to go with a hunch, even if it's against the odds. In this case the hunch is that he'll stay healthy for the duration of the contract. If he does, this was a very good deal, in my opinion. If he doesn't, well, then maybe we should have waited. But what if he got seriously injured next fall? After we had just been forced to match an offer for five years at $20M per...

What makes this discussion hard to wrap is the unknown; his future durability and level of dominance. It comes down to hunches. Personally, I think Bynum will start kicking everybody's ass sometime late December, never to look back. And I don't think he'll have an injury plagued career. Based on that, I would have hated it if they waited to let other teams in on the bidding, by waiting to next summer. Doing so would probably have prevented us from re-signing Odom, Ariza and Farmar. Now, we at least still have a shot at re-signing maybe all three (depending on how much Buss wants to open up the big ole wallet).

Buss will pay for a winning roster. His legacy is at stake, but he just won't overpay thoughtlessly. This was another example of that. This was a reasonable and smart deal, in my opinion. Fair for both parties and good for the fans.

Those are my $0.02

[Sedale Threatt]

M, although I like the poker analogy, we're probably not going to agree on the exact circumstances of the hand we just played. I wouldn't say we went all in on anything. I would say we had the correct pot odds to make the call we did.

I also wouldn't say that an extra $2-3 million a year is exactly nothing. It might be. It might be just to lighten the load on Jerry's wallet, which I couldn't give a crap about. But it also might be the extra bit of cash we need to bring back a key player. At this juncture, who knows?

We shall see, just as we shall see if Andrew makes it through the season in one piece. Here's hoping it all works out in our favor.